Why You Want to Split The Party - GM Tips
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- We take a look at how and why you want to split the party and how you as a Game Master can deal with this in your games, whether you are running a Dungeons and Dragons game, a Star Wars game or modern setting, this can work for you.
Find the amazing Theria world campaign book, and their awesome podcast here!
www.dandrpodcast.com/
#GreatGM #GameMasterTips
▶ The Goblin Bell
If you enjoy our content, click the bell icon and you will receive notifications of when a new video is up!
▶ Each week on How to be a Great Game Master:
» Wednesday: Game Master's guide and tips to being a great game master
» Friday: Creating the Campaign Series, where we go in depth weekly on building the ultimate campaign.
» Sunday: Player character guides and tips on being a great player character in your RPG sessions.
▶ Find our Complete Guide to Creating Epic Campaigns here:
www.greatgamemaster.com/dm/pr...
▶ Want some cool modules, maps, and also help support our channels via Patreon? / greatgamemaster
▶ Essential stuff that we think every role player needs: www.amazon.com/shop/howtobeag...
▶ Or support us by buying your RPG stuff at Amazon:
(US): amzn.to/2xTszFF
(UK): amzn.to/2sQbP3y
▶ Find out More about us Here:
» Website: www.greatgamemaster.com
» Facebook: / greatgamemaster
» Twitter: / howtogm
» Discord: / discord 
Игры
*Thanks for watching! What are your thoughts on splitting the party? Let us know in the comments below!*
Find the amazing Therio world campaign book, and their awesome podcast here!: www.dandrpodcast.com/
Guy,
I have been watching your videos and a couple of years ago you spoke of a book that you were writing. It was about writing a campaign. I have been looking all over for it. How can I find this book?
Great video! Just wanted to let you know since this has been happening on other channels without their knowledge - there were a couple ad breaks in the middle of your video, some of which cut you off in the middle of a sentence. Might want to double check that.
I just finished my first full campaign on FATE about a month ago, and even though the party was only 3 people, they often got split up! It seemed quite natural to me, and I always made sure to take your advice of swapping between both parties at the right time by giving them mini-cliffhangers. They players were all engaged and used the time when the other party were moving to think of what they wanted to do next , it never felt like anything was taking too long, and the players seemed to enjoy it
When I first started playing D&D back in the dark ages (First edition…the three pamphlet set) we weren’t sure how it was supposed to be played. So we did something I’ve never seen anyone do since.
There were four of us and we all took turns as GM. One person would be the GM. One person would play and would have a party of NPCs along with their player character. One person would play the monsters in case of battle and one person got a break for a while.
We had a timer and everyone got a 20 minute turn and then when the time rang, we’d rotate. We had a shared world that we all worked on and each person would create adventures within that world for the person they’d be GMing for.
It worked out pretty well. Every player got a lot more personal attention because they were THE player. The battles were more interesting and challenging because the monsters were played with more creativity. And folks could take a bio break or get some snacks without pausing the game.
I always tell them the same thing "I will happily allow it, but you must be patient and remember- the only change in the situation is you." I'm not going to change my plans, those guards or monsters or what have you will be exactly the same as if there were all 5 of them. yeah they'll cover more ground, but they must accept the risk.
As always, a great video. The lessons of 2016 served me well in 2019: The Party was boarding a train (a literal magical railroad!). To board each character handed over a token (obtained the previous adventure). Each was then gasified, sucked into the ventilation system, then deposited into their assigned cabin, intentionally split along in-world class/racial lines. The familiars/mounts were placed into the kennel (magically sealed). This enabled the players to merge information via the critters. It also gave them a goal (retrieve the familiars/mounts).
One set of characters in First class experienced one train experience, gathered a set of clues, while the lower class/abandoned section of the train gave the other party members another experience. Seeding dead bodies in First Class foreshadowed the monster the other half of the party met. The First Class Party did have a heroic moment of rescuing the familiars/mounts.
Under "take what they expect and subvert it": There were Simulacra in various sections, so each party got to experience different takes on the progenitor character. There were dimensional short cuts across the train, since going one car after the other all the time would be expected, and boring. Some cars were bigger on the inside. The steerage party awoke in a very worn car seemingly in a forest, but it was actually a train carriage inside a forest car inside a carriage! A must have moment was the requisite battle atop the train, with some magical and physical twists.
Figuring out the topology of the train, the social dynamic of the residents of the train, avoiding/defeating the threats on the train, and solving the puzzle to enable the train to finally reach its destination was the adventure. Splitting the party made it work, as did Guy's teachings of pacing, tension and release, NPC design, etc. My players said it was one of our most memorable adventures!
As a DM, I personally love it when players in a group split the party. Gameplay speeds up tremendously, players get more chance in the spotlight, and the thrill of a more challenging experience is introduced. The only problem comes from when a DM doesn't know how to properly handle a party split. But so long as you can smoothly jump back and forth between the split groups -- split away!
Solid video, Guy!
Heck yeah, half the characters, double the fun
The only big differences for the GM are that there are two scenes going on instead of one, or whether one scene happening in two different places at the same time, and the they might need an excuse to eventually get the party back together
There was a great moment in your Ghosts of Saltmarsh campaign when two of the pcs went off alone and invisible to fight the big bad, and it led to the most dramatic and amazing session of the campaign! That episode completely reshaped the way I think about split parties
I'm running my second one shot ever for my family tomorrow (second time GMing evern, too!) - none of them are very well versed in D&D and I've only just found your channel! I've been binge watching your videos all day! The way you explain things is so incredibly helpful, clear, and concise - while also still being incredibly creative. I've made some small, but important, changes to some aspects of the game for tomorrow and I'm even more excited and more confident now! Thank you for all you do for us newbie GMs! :)
NGL, this happened in a campaign once. I was like a warpriest and I was chatting with the monk. We (in character) got into a huge conversation about apples and spent 20 minutes talking about crops. The Bloodrager went and did a horizontal tango with someone's wife, The mage talked with the city's governor, and the monk and I went to a store and chatted about apples.
Glad to see the Adventurer’s Guide to Theria making the rounds. I backed the Kickstarter, and it really is a remarkable book.
I love the timing of this Guy. This got posted as I went live streaming the game I am running as anew DM. Why is this great timing? I ended the previous session with one of the players (who tends to go off alone a lot) being kidnapped... after she spent her resources in a rough battle. So this session was literally "A Split Party Saves One Of Them".
I'm going to keep this in mind to do it better next time.
"... and you should, having watched this channel for so long..."
Me, having never seen any other videos on this channel: *Sweats nervously*
I love that you went to an older video and did an update, especially considering technological updates. I used to run games only on paper and in person, but now I'm really getting into tools like DungeonFog and we are only online. I find there are many advantages but my challenge is in adapting my habits to fit the online environment. I'd love to see any updates to older videos, whether it's to revise the information through the lens of online game sessions or just experience! I like that, even after your many years of gaming, you are still learning and growing...and then sharing your insights with us! Thank you, Guy!!
Great video! I really respect that you were willing to go back and acknowledge some of the advancements and changes that you have made on the topic. Very often I see videos talking about a topic that becomes outdated or has a lot of extra room to be expounded upon yet it is never revisited. So I really respect and adore that you took the time to revisit this topic.
I really enjoyed your conversation around the topic of narrative versus simulationist gaming. However, I will say I believe you provided very narrow examples of each technique. In simulationist games, having restrictions and defined ideas helps me create interesting and more nuanced ways to get to what I want or it's subvert what is already there. In the tower example, it may take them 12 or more rounds to get up the tower if they're going by the stairs. There's nothing stopping you from having a pulley system be nearby that the players can cut and ascend the tower extra fast at the cost of taking a little damage or having to find a way to deal with the rope burn that would cause. It can also allow many different ways to premiere player ingenuity or creative fixes and cinematic action to subvert the simulation! Similarly, I have seen a lot of narrative ideas fall apart or become unbelievable because of what they allowed to happen because there is no concrete or defined stakes. So while I do agree with the concept of knowing how you want to play, I will say that those two examples are not at all the only ones that exist based upon each technique.
Amazing video by the way! I always love seeing what you have to say!
Excellent as usual. Your original video was a literal game changer for my group. The cinematic cliff hangers as we swap around the virtual table made sessions way more engaging. The bonus that the players and myself got to think about the next scene in the mean time lead to better stories as well, which is wonderful!
Thanks for the help, my most recent session ended with one player hopping on a boat to save an NPC they thought was going to be murdered, one group on the outskirts of the city with one of them knocked out, and the other group in the middle of the city, almost being held under house arrest, and oh boy, it's going to be a tough session to plan
You are just such a delight to watch!
I really needed that video, thank you very much :)
I’d love to see him in action, see a session with him being the GM, or PC
This may sound odd, but for myself, a split party flows just like a together party. Players only can talk one at a time, so I flow with what they do. Two groups of two people in different shops is no different than four in one. It can be a lot of fun when need to split and players become aware though that inevitably a team game needs the whole team
That's true and ist very common.
I just want to tell you that the intro alone brought me to tears ^^
I'm going to watch the rest after I calm down...
When half of my last campaign's PC's decided to go on a side quest which lasted a couple of sessions I gave the other players a couple NPC hirelings to play so all the players had a role in the side-quest. Once it was over, I ran a session of catch-up for the players who continued on the main travel plan and let the side questers join up after a sufficient period of downtime had passed. I think it went well, and I would employ that technique again if the party split in a similar fashion again.
In the short term though I juggle the different players in different locations based on time it takes to perform the actions they describe. Not much different that turn by turn going around the table, just keeping a sense of separation in both time and distance in mind to be able to stitch them back together in a plausible manner once I could do so.
Amazing updates and insights, thanks again!
Here's an idea.
after the party splits, have one group find a key/password/puzzle solution while exploring. A bit later, the other group comes to a road block requiring the key.
Let them metagame their way back together.
Once you've done enough Call of Cthulhu, even as a story teller you get plenty comfortable with IDIOTS DIE. Roll up a new character and make it reasonably close in level to the group. The introduction of the new character becomes a fun event. But don't make it too fun... or you end up playing Dungeons And Roll Up A New Character.
The actual character writing part is what always kills me when a character dies...
First!
Great video guy. Starting a new campaign today. Looking forward to it, and this video may come up!
WOOOO!!! D&R deserves the promotion
Hi guy. You probably won’t ever get round to reading this. But I’ve Been a fan of your channel for a long time. I’ve still not gm’d my first RPG because of work and COVID etc. But I’ve spent a lot of time on your channel and feel better equipped to handle it when it will finally come round. I plan to run a deathwatch game in future. Please keep up your great work it’s helped me a lot so far.
I wish I had this video's wisdom two weeks ago when I falafel'd around trying to speed through the split party bit because as they said (even though it was there choice to do so) "It was boring for each member to sit around" I could have turned it into great moments.
When my party splits, I always make sure that one team isn't stuck doing mundane things. One team could be discussing things with an NPC and performing an investigation, perhaps even hearing interesting tidbits of conversation and gain useful info as they wander down the market stalls in a bazaar. Meanwhile, the other team might be having a tense, but civil discussion with an obviously threatening baddie, trying to buy time or talk their way out of it, or even trying to make a dating escape.
I'm lucky as a GM I suppose. Current homebrew is 7 players, and I only ever knew 2 of them well before the campaign started.
When I GM, I make sure that all players know I like to run deadly combats. As a result, they only fight when they really have to, and most of the time there are actually no fatalities. They try to find alternative ways to deal with a challenge ahead to preserve themselves, and definitely don't enter alone in a dragon cave when split haha. If they do, well, better they have good rolls or start planning new characters :P .
It is important to note that I run Forbidden Lands games though. That system by nature has a very deadly combat system in order to keep with post-apocalyptic/dark fantasy setting.
Splitting the party is easy and fun! I recommend it!
I've always had the good fortune that whenever there is a party split, the other players are invested enough in the story that they play close attention to what is going on, even though it's not about their characters.
The trickiest split I've dealt with was when the disguised vampire got a PC alone and mind-controlled him. I was sending him secret texts while talking to everyone else in voice chat, so they wouldn't realize what was going on. Eventually one PC got a high enough Perception roll to hear the bumping and investigate, so the mind-jacked PC only got partially eaten. Good times.
Thats a good advice to help break the mantra some players and GM say:
"Never split the party"
I do think overcoming that deeply held belief might be difficult. The players need to trust that, no, you're not just trying to set things up so the rogue and the bard have to fight the vampire lord alone, armed only with a spoon, or whatever.
@@suedenim but you also gotta let them know it's not like you are actively preventing this either
And you never let that damn thief out of sight.
@@jaffarebellion292 ugh
I myself have always been enthralled by the idea of splitting up the party for a short amount of time for whatever reason. I just loved seeing different players and different characters isolated together to see how they interact and how they manage the situation around them, it could go horribly wrong, and it is sometimes very difficult to run a game like that, which is why I feel like it should only be for a short amount of time. (Really, it all depends on the players)
In which video do you talk about tension and relaxation?
Another great video - always learn something and am entertained. "This is stupid..."Guy. "LOOK AT THE BONES!"-Tim the Enchanter
Need a piece of advice. In our campaign part of the group wants to time jump while travelling on a flying ship from one point to another while the other wants to use these time to explore, make potions, get gear, etc... As there's a time aspect involved, it becomes difficult to run this split group. What would you recommend in such situations. Thanks a lot
I think splitting the party whilst playing over the net on FG or R20 etc is extremely difficult. Those VTTs aren't set up to handle separate combats etc. In my experience, its very difficult, but not Impossible. The trick is one group gets to use things like combat tracker and maps, while the other group is handled using a different approach. Mics and text mostly. While the other group gets the benefit of on screen maps etc.
I would be very interested in learning how yourself and other GMs handle split parties on VTTs. Good video as always Guy.
I'm not sure about combat but running split groups isn't toooo bad online, at least in principle. When playing in person I prefer we keep phones out of the room but when playing online I can dm my players on discord details, patron dialogue or a puzzle/issue they can solve/interact with whilst the active group is involved in rp/combat etc, before switching over. I'm not sure if I could run 2 combats at once well but there's always time to learn!
the best split I had so far, is one group was doing a break and enter and was caught by a group of other Thiefs. they where almost defeated during combat, as the other group bumped into the place looking for a Wizard to help with their problem... it was so nice.
anyway. I usually let the "not-playing-group" take over scripted NPCs. I hand them some information and let them go with it
we have one player who is very risky. he tried to keep pulling at a powerful sword when a large rumble came from a large gaping hole in a volcanic area, but another player cast a sleep spell on him and pulled him away. it was pretty funny. it was only 2 of the 4 players and they were all ready to beat him.
My group tends to split when the Sneaky Guy does his Sneaky Thing; since we're playing remotely, the Sneaky Guy and I communicate remotely; creates tension in the rest of the group since there're things happening that they don't see (like would be when the party splits). Then it's up to the PC to communicate to the rest of the party what was experienced. I use the same mechanism when passive checks happen successfully, or some set of characters perceive something the others don't, or particular characters are charmed. My hope is that the PCs will do the RP thing: maybe they'll tell the truth, maybe they'll dissemble or mislead if it makes sense for them to do so.
It doesn't scale at all as you're describing, but it just feels wrong to let players hear and experience something that they can't based on the circumstances of the game.
I'm hoping to capitalize on this. I'm GMing Maximum Apocalypse and my group is, frankly, much too strong all together.
Splitting is my favorite trick to deal with how obscenely strong and controlling my party got - not so powerful without each other to cover their weaknesses
I’m a newcomer to DnD and Table-Top gaming... I had a group that attempted to teach me DnD and, while I have a knowledge on roleplaying and such, I’m still a newbie. Could you offer tips?
He has many videos on "how to be a great player" too, they should help
When I split the party on the table, I send them to another room if needed. Online I use Discord and made multiple servers where I send them so they are really split up.
So i am a simulation dm. Sweet.
Ok... I am now picturing a Dragon going out for casual grocery shopping and getting toiletries.
As long as it wears a mask!
"They never do.....But they can!"
Now I want to know how I force the party to split
I was told for a while never to split the party. Didn't used to be that way though. Still, I can see why it might be something to avoid for a novice DM. I do get slightly miffed when experienced DMs ask you not to though, some of my best games involved split parties.
I see it as a tool in a GM's toolbox. You prepare for it like any other type of encounter, but it shouldn't span more than a few sessions at a time.
@@g0oberdm417 I think there was some miscommunication: I wasn't told as a DM never to split the party, I was told as a player never to split the party, that it was a major, well understood rule as a player.
@@101jir Ah, that's fair. It's a rule of thumb that splitting the party is avoided generally just due to the issues it can cause if done too frequently, considering it in itself doesn't add to the story, the opportunities it creates do.
@@g0oberdm417 Makes sense
Before my table settled down to the much-more-comfortable 7 players (we were 8 for a little while), while we were at the FLGS, at one point I hit about 14. Split parties CONSTANTLY occurred with a group that big, and sometimes, it was that !@#$ rogue going off by himself, and then two other groups splitting.
My solution was timers. You'd get one minute per member of the group. At that point, even if you're in the middle of combat, the scene will cut back to the other group. So, even now, if I have 3 people in one group, 3 in another, and the ranger sneaking around up on a ledge, there's three minutes, three minutes, and one minute sets of turns.
This works enough to keep them together, but it DEFINITELY gives a deficit of "Me Time" to that loner. You got ONE MINUTE...make good use of it. After that, I go back to the other six people in the party. Next time...don't run off by yourself.
This actually seems pretty awesome, I might apply it as I've been trying to find ways to use timers again having changed to online DND. Obviously I could still use a timer but I prefer the visual of a timer for players to panic about, adds suspense.
Okay, which of my players told you tomorrow's session takes off just after splitting?
I'm not a big fan of splitting the party in situations where there is no actual need for a split. IE, when a player doesn't want to do what the other party wants and want their own adventure. This becomes a big negative to the other players who decided on a specific course of action but now have to "not play" for half the time they thought they were, because Carla feels her batman like drow doesnt work well with others.
I have a rule that split parties need to be 2 or more, preferably no more than 2 , but 3 if they feel its necessary.
Instead of making the two groups "equal" I find it best to determine the impact of the locations and allocate time accordingly. IE, 4 players want to confront the circus promotor and the other two want to free the animals. I can invent a monster for the animal freeers, but it doesn't make sense for their time to expand an encounter, making the puzzle to free the animals more difficult. Instead I'd concentrate 3 rounds on the combat, and 1 out of combat round while hte PCs attempt to figure out how to free the animals. Switching b ack when it feels a good amount of drama was had. But at no point does that part equal the same amount of time as combat.
I find the split quite difficult to manage personally, usually I'd have 1 group involved passively with something, whether it's a puzzle, patron dialogue (dm'ing mid session whilst other group are busy) or other issue to discuss between them and another actively whether it's combat, rp or otherwise. I sort of ignore balancing everything perfectly and instead look at players to see if they're losing interest. It's hard to do online but you can tell if you look at which player hasn't been involved in something for a period.
@@g0oberdm417 Matt Corville also has great advice on how to handle it in a thread. And I liked it. A lot of times you have a player who just wants to do their own thing hwile they are with friends, almost a spectator. So devout time to that player based on the actual number of players. Instead of an even shift, Go back to that players side quest .
@@nathanmichael167 Exactly, a lot of players just want to be involved, whether actively or passively, but they should get a chance to have the spotlight on them. Say for instance my current campaign is very story driven and I'm learning to balance introducing backstories to the narrative slowly without focusing on a single player (the same grain but at a larger scale)
The new version of the Stargate RPG (www.kickstarter.com/projects/wyvrengaming/stargate-roleplaying-game) actually encourages the characters to split up.
Can you do a review on this new RPG?
Managing a splitted party is what Guy does better than every other GM I know.
I actually tell and give them situations to do it, but for some reason they are afraid of it... It actually frustrates me a bit
There's a book with a title that disagrees with you: oots.fandom.com/wiki/Don%27t_Split_the_Party
A mile high tower? This sounds like Sharn. And a good opportunity to play chicken. Last to use feather fall is a chicken.
I don't mind splitting parties, and since I'm kind of a "simulation storyteller" ( actions/consequences have the expected, visceral, gravity. Want to storm that camp solo? Git gud or die. On the flip side, the main game is storytelling, just maybe not the PC's stories in the "traditional sense"), I have no qualms about filmic timing or hand-waving things for the sake of flow.
Players at my table realize quickly that, due to both me and the system, IDIOT should be kept low... unless it's that kind of IDIOT plan that's just crazy enough to work. Like deciding to feed a horrible monster enough explosives to level a building.
I actually love splitting the party up. Sometimes in 3 or even 4 groups. I leave each group on cliffhangers until I come back to them which is NEVER a LOOOOOONG time. I go around the room frequently, and I can tell a massive story much quicker, that when they regroup, they roleplay and piece the grand story together. I love it, and they seem to love the equal time in the spotlight, being highlighted as a character. I just can't agree that splitting is a bad idea. If done right, it works wonderfully. Granted, this is NOT done often. Only when I want them to feel threatened and need them to understand that they can handle some things in a much smaller pair.
This is unheard of. Everyone knows a party is a group of married individuals who when they split up want to split from each other
8 commercials during the vid. WTF RUclips.
With digital chat and secret chats and that. Don't just leave a player hanging for prolonged periods of time. It gets very boring for the player who wanted to play to sit over 30 min in silence rolling their thumbs. Jump back and forth between the parties.
How much IDIOT I allow into my games? Bold of you to assume my players have a limit.
Idiots earn the wages of idiocy in my game.
Why bother playing dungeons and dragons or call of cthulhu or whatever game system if you ignore the realities and rules of the game in favor of the narrative. If you want a narrative driven game why not play something like Hillfolk?
I don't think telling a group not to split up is a railroading... They are a group. If they are adults most likely they have waited all week to play that one game-just to sit there for 20 minutes while one or two people play the game and everybody else just sits held hostage.